About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 3
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
CSPAN2 1
LANGUAGE
English 13
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
to testify about the pentagon's response to the attack on ought consulate. he said the u.s. didn't have enough time to respond. he says it's not like you can pick up the phone and call 911. mike emanuel is on the hill. set the stage for us on this hearing. >> reporter: it's designed to address the concerns of south carolina senator lindsey graham who threatened to hold up the confirmation for chuck hagel, his successor. so what did the president know about the benghazi attack september 11, when did he know about it and what did he do about it? sources i talked to say panetta and others are carrying out the orders of the commander-in-chief. so what were they and how were they handled. expect fireworks. rick: later on this afternoon the president's nominee the head of the cia takes center stage. >> reporter: expect john brenner to get plenty of questions about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques during this time at cia. he left there in 2005. at the white house they are emphasizing brennan's experience. >> mr. brennan brings, i think, not on a vast amount of experience, but a sig
when he talks. apparently brennan wants to put them under pentagon control. who knows if that is true but there are three things i was shocked the democrats didn't bring up. and it's three questions that every president obama ditto head has to respond to. i don't like criticizing this but let's be honestly about a couple of things. number 1, the word imminent how that no longer means imminent and it means we think you might do something 20s years from now and that makes you an imminent threat and we have to kill you with with no trial. no. 2 is militant. any male over the age of 16 whose near where one of these bombs goes off is counted as a militant whether they were or not. toe try to talk al-qaeda guys. >> that's how they keep the civilian death tolls low. it's a dirt dirty business. number 3, blowback, what no democrat asked about is every time we kill an america hater with one of these things we are creating untold numbers of new. so it's person pet y'all war. >> i would add a high informed -- highly placed. we don't know who that i
to vote today on hagel's nomination to head the pentagon, but that vote has been postponed after republicans said they hadn't received sufficient information about hagel's financial records and specifically about any payments he's received from foreign sources. that's an odd hurdle given that republicans never seem concerned about foreign revenue sources when it came to nominees from george w. bush. one democratic official working on the hagel nomination told politico, quote, what they're asking is unprecedented, and it's clear that it's information that he's unable to provide. hagel says he can't provide it because it would violate confidentiality of the boards that he serves on. of course, critics say this is about more than incomplete financial records. so why are republicans really holding up hagel's nomination? aaron david miller is vice president for new initiatives at the woodrow wilson center. he has served as an adviser on the middle east to both democratic and republican secretaries of state. and joe klein is a columnist for "time" magazine. gentlemen, buzz feed pointed
of improving efficiency within the pentagon. i would say that applies to all the other agencies as well. secondly, most of the concern about sequestration is focused on readiness and training, which is absolutely true. if you talk to the lawyers that work with the defense contractors, they think they will have a field day care and some had testimony last year that the legal hassles emanating from sequestration may eat up a lot of their savings. but beyond that, there are a lot of dangerous places in the world. and what we do is try to develop capability to deal with the unknowable contingencies of what could happen at a place like syria or iran or north korea. with less money, you can prepare for future contingencies. the point is that it does not just readiness. it hurts us in the real world today. there are lots of options to deal with this. as was mentioned, the house passed bills twice last year to substitute sequestration's savings for other more targeted savings so that you save this amount of money, you're still fiscally responsible, but you don't get defense and these domestic p
and democrats face a march 1 deadline to avoid billions in across-the-board spending cuts. the pentagon announced it will offer benefits to same-sex couples. in the senate is wrapping up work on the violence against women act. and the house will vote on a bill requiring the president to offer a plan to balance the federal budget in 10 years. good morning. we begin with your take on the leaked white paper from the white house just fine drone strikes on u.s. citizens overseas. nbc news reported on the memo monday night and it has gotten lots of reaction in washington. what are your thoughts? call -- we want to get your thoughts on social media as well on twitter or facebook. or send us an e-mail. we will get your thoughts in a moment. first, josh gerstein is joining us on the phone. here's your headline -- what was this memo? guest: this is a white paper that looks like it was derived from some confidential legal opinions that the opinions -- opinions that the justice department wrote that authorized drones or some other counter-terrorism operations to basically killed u.s. citizens overs
washington post" that we needed to reduce dod as a reason to improve efficiency within the pentagon. that applies to all the other agencies as well. secondly, most of the concern about sequestration is about readiness. which is absolutely true. if you talk about the lawyers that work as defense contractors, they believe that they will have a field day. we have even had testimony last year that the legal household emanating from sequestration making up a lot of the savings. but beyond that, as senator ayotte and senator lindsey reference, there are a lot of dangerous places in the world. but we do is try to develop capabilities to deal with the unknowable contingencies of what could happen at a place like syria or iran or north korea. with less money, you can perform with fewer contingencies. this hurts us in the real world today. my final point is there are lots of options to deal with this. as was mentioned, the house passed bills twice last year to substitute sequestration savings for other more or other more targeted savings, so the same amount of money, and these domestic progra
until today to make these announcements. do you accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been we listed every major item we are talking about. we said we had to do furloughs. we said there would be cutbacks in readiness. we said unit costs would go up. all the same things. what we didn't do with a detailed budget planning and i don't regret that. we wouldn't have known the effects of the continuing resolution. we wouldn't have known that congress is going to change the size and the. moreover, we would have incurred the productivity and we would v done it six months ago, so i don't regret not doing that. i think we did sound the alarm in every way we could. >> i am wondering what kind of contract you are having with the white house and with congress there is going to have to be some. so are you trying to offer any solutions? also, i am wondering, what other things would you be doing right now if you were not spending all your time on this sequester. >> spending time with my wife -- i think i am hot the right person to answer. we are responsible for providing the nation's securi
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)